Introduction Primary Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) testing offers higher sensitivity and specificity over Visual Inspection using Acetic acid (VIA) in cervical cancer screening. Self-sampling is a promising strategy to boost participation and reduce disparities. However, concerns about the initial costs hinder HPV testing adoption in low and middle-income countries. This study assesses the cost-utility of home-based HPV self-sampling versus VIA for cervical cancer screening in India   Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in East district, Sikkim, India, comparing the costs and utility outcomes of population-based cervical cancer screening through VIA and primary HPV screening through self-sampling. Cost-related data were collected from April 2021 to March 2022 using the bottom-up micro-costing method, while utility measures were collected prospectively using the EuroQoL-5D-5L questionnaire. The utility values were converted into quality-adjusted life days (QALDs) for an 8-day period. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was based on per capita GDP for 2022. . If the calculated Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) value is lower than the WTP threshold, it signifies that the intervention is cost-effective.   Results The study included 95 women in each group of cervical cancer screening with VIA & HPV self-sampling. For eight days, the QALD was found to be 7.977 for the VIA group and 8.0 for the HPV group. The unit cost per woman screened by VIA and HPV self-testing was ?1,597 (US$ 19.2) and ?1,271(US$ 15.3), respectively. The ICER was ?-14,459 (US$ -173.6), which was much below the WTP threshold for eight QALDs, i.e. ? 4,193 (US$ 50.4).   Conclusion The findings support HPV self-sampling as a cost-effective alternative to VIA. This informs policymakers and healthcare providers for better resource allocation in cervical cancer screening in Sikkim.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Study proposal was approved by the Institute Human Ethics Committee of the ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India (Reference number: NIE/IHEC/A/202212-02). All the respondents were interviewed after obtaining written informed consent.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Deidentified (anonymized) data will be available on request